tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN December 8, 2009 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
our domestic radical environmentalists and a globalist elite this unholy alliance has already had an impact. it is no accident that for other the past 20 years, america has built no hydroelectric dams, no nuclear power plants no oil refineries, and has brought into production a pitifully small amount of new domestic oil and gas. in essence, our economy has been and is now being starved of traditional energy development. even the much acclaimed solar energy alternative has been strangled in its cradle. the federal bureau of land management, which is unduly influenced by radical environmentalists, has prevented the building of solar powered electric generating facilities in america's vast deserts. this supposedly to protect the habitat of lizards and insects which are obviously more
important to these elitist decision makers than the quality of life -- decisionmakers than the quality of life of human beings, our quality of life, us. again, the forces behind the undermining of america's domestic energy development know exactly what they're doing. treaty obligations are not, they want to change our way of life, to remake america, whether we like it or not. this isn't about green power, it's about raw political power exercised over our lives. a few decades ago the global radical environmental alliance, the globalist radical environmental alliance, latched oopt an apocalyptic theory to justify their power grab. the theory is that the world is dramatically heating up because of how we human beings live. especially us americans. so controlling us must be the answer to saving the planet from heating up and up and up.
when they geared up their crusade, our planet was in one of the its many warming cycles. but the illusion that they are trying to create began to disintegrate about nine years ago when the earth quit warming and now may be in a cooling cycle. undaunted the fanatic claims and their predictions of global warming have now been transformed into a new all-encompassing warning. so global warming which is the phrase which was yelled at us for almost a decade, but now that has miraculously been changed into climate change. do they think that the american people are stupid? do they think that we'll just forget about their predictions of rapid rises in temperatures and that those predictions have
been proven 100% wrong? even the much-touted melting of the arctic ice cap has reversed itself in the last two years and is now refreezing and enlarging. the warming has ended but the power grab continues. what we now are finding out is exactly how ruthless and, yes, how deceitful this power grab has been. it is becoming ever more apparent that during the 1990's many scientists who refused to go along with the global warming paradigm were denied research grants. prominent scientists like dr. gray, dr. william gray, former president of the american meteorological social, found themselves repeatedly -- association, found themselves repeatedly rejected for research grants despite their years of distinguished research with excellence and accomplishments. the liberal press ignored those
transgressions, ignored that repression of opposing views yet the same press made it a huge controversy when the bush administration simply -- when during the bush administration, nasa asked richard hanson, which is nasa's most vocal global warming activist staffer, simply to note when being published that the opinions that he was publishing were his opinions and not necessarily endorsed by nasa. well, the press made that into a horrible attack on his rights. this was censorship. there were hearings in congress about that, simply asking this man to acknowledge that it was his opinions and not the official opinions of nasa. well, how does that compare with the coverage and the outrage over outright repression and denial of research grants to prominent scientists? how does that compare with vice president gore's firing of dr.
william happer as the lead scientist at the department of energy? this because happer was open minded on the issue of global warming. not that he opposed it but that he was open minded about it. the double standard in the reporting of this issue has been appalling. zealots can usually find excuses for their transgressions. this abusive attack on happer and so many others, so many other prominent scientists, of course, was perpetrated in the name of protecting all of us from a climate calamity. manmade global warming, that we were repeatedly warned was going to fry the plannest. we can still hear claims of a disastrous upward jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, arctic meltings, forest fires, hurricanes, as i had seas, dying plants and animals, every climate-related disaster that a federal research grant can
conjure up we're hearing about because that's how they get their government grants, that's how they qualify. professional figures in white coats with tones of voice and lots of credentials repeatedly dismissed specific criticism of what they were proposing by claiming that their so-called scientific findings had been peer reviewed, verified by other scientists, rather than honestly discussing the issues that were being raised they pour trade themselves as beyond -- portrayed, they -- they portrayed themselves as being beyond reproach. they gave each other prizes as they selectively handed out research grants. those who disagreed, no matter how prominent, were treated like nonentities, like they didn't exist, or they were personally disparaged, labeled deniers, you know, like holocaust deniers.
how much uglier can you get? but such tactics won't work forever. it's clear there are steam-- their steamroller operation is beginning to fall apart. we know, we know that because we hear scientists who have been clamoring for subservient acceptance of their theory of manmade global warming, we now can find out and we now understand that those very same scientists, they themselves were making a sham out of scientific methodology and were indeed repressing dissent and destroying peer review. i'm speaking, of course, about over 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents that were proaligned from one of the most formal global research climate institutes in the united kingdom.
let me acknowledge, yes, a hacker, or possibly a whistle blower, may have been responsible for making this information public. but contrary to the fanatic attempt to distract attention away from the clear wrong doing and arrogance that was exposed in these communications, contrary to that, how those documents were obtained is not what's relevant. it's the truth of these emails that count, not how the information was obtained. what do these formerly private and now exposed communications say? one email is from kevin, head of the climate and analysis section at the national center for atmospheric research in boulder, colorado. in it he describes his utter frustration with studies that reach conclusions contrary to his clinic's predictions of a
looming global warming disaster. even more frustrating, the temperatures being report -- recorded, contrary to his august observations and predictions, contrary to them, things were getting colder, much colder than usual. and here, folks, is the clincher. he laments in this email, in this formerly secret communication, the fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment. and it is a trafficesty that we can't, end of -- travesty that we can't. end of quote. rather than reconsidering his position he's proclaiming he can't find a cover thick enough to hide his errors. so what do you do if those gosh darn numbers show that there's no warming? well, you fudge the numbers, of course. there's a 1999 email from phil jones, the center's director, talking about a, quote, trick, end of quote, in the
presentation of data intended to, quote, hide -- to hide the decline, end of quote. what does decline mean? when he says hide the decline? a decline in global temperatures, of course. these people who were touting global warming are talking about hiding the decline in temperatures that would prove there is no global warming going on at this time. to those who have followed this issue closely, this is nothing new. we have seen it before. there was a famous graph produced by michael man, one of the most prominent global warming advocates. his famous graph as well as his highly out toed lectures -- touted lectures deleted the existence of a warming period in the middle ages and the 500-year decline of the earth's temperature which ended in about 1850 known as the little ice age. those very real temperature
cycles were left out of his graphs. and many of the newly revealed emails detail that this was intention deception. man's graph indicated century's long stability -- centuries' long stability instead of two distinct climate cycles going up and down and then after presenting a graph that just had centuries' long stability, then we were shown a jump in temperature that looked like a hockey stick. the end of a hockey stick. civility and then a big jump forward. that graph was a fake and the jump in temperature he predicted didn't happen so now the climate elite have simply delighted the -- deleted the hockey stick graph from their presentation, even though it was a distinct part of their presentation for years. just as man had deleted the proceeding warming and cooling cycles when he analyzed modern
temperature trends and put them into his graph. as more honest and level-headed scientists from around the world raised serious requests, well-funded global warming alarmists were hard pressed to answer critics. so what is a true believer to do when you hear criticism? well, shut up the opposition, of course. no, don't consider what the opposition is saying, don't try to take an honest -- have an honest dialogue, no, shut them up. here's phil jones again. this time about censoring criticism. i can't see either of these papers being in the next ipcc report. let's just stop right there. so here he is trying to leave out of the ipcc report papers that were contrary in view yet they tout over and over again that the ipcc is the basis for their credibility. it's all the time talking about
the ipcc report yet here we have a quote talking about how they're trying to censor what goes into that report. quoting further, kevin and i will keep them out even if we take this information out of the -- meaning this information in the ipcc report, even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is. these are the same people who are proclaiming that the credibility came from the ipcc and peer reviewed research. and let's look at what happened next when an editor of an academic jurm does not buckle under this kind of pressure and actually publishes the work of a skeptical scientist. here's what jones says, and i quote, i will be emailing the journal to tell them i'm having nothing more to do with it until they get -- until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor, end of quote. this guy is conspiring to get
the editor of a research publication fired and what was it for? for publishing a contrary view. is this science? these emails are filled not with answering critics but with the effort to stifle the right to question what these people were advocating. significantly manmade global warming alarmists have continually countered criticism by arrogantly dismissing tangible questions and asserting that peer reviews backed them up. well, now we can see the evidence that these self-righteous snobs who saw themselves as above criticism were manipulating if not destroying the peer review process. so no one with other points of view could actually participate. get that? they say, you can't question our
material because ours has been peer reviewed and your criticisms haven't but they themselves were undermining the ability of those critics to have their criticisms published in a peer-reviewed publication. have they no shame? oh, but there's more than this. jones again, this time to professor michael man of pennsylvania state university, the same guy with the phony hockey stick graph, is talking about hiding information from critics. . i think i'll delete the file rather than sending it to anyone. madam speaker, this isn't not only arrogant but criminal. we continue to be the victims of outright lies.
and victims of an effort to focus our people on some kind of created and mythical scientific findings in order to scare and force our people into accepting draconian economic and regulatory policies. senator james inhoff of oklahoma has called for an investigation in the senate. there should be one in the house as well. certain scientists receiving federal research grants are betraying the standards of their own profession and perhaps breaking the law. countless numbers of our own people will suffer job losses and a decline in their standard of living if policies based on phony science, bad practices, the suppression of dissent and outright lies are put in place and enforced. before any action is taken by
this congress on cap and trade legislation, a full inquiry into this horrific abuse of science should be conducted. wake up, america. they are trying to steal our freedom with lies and scare tactics. the good book says, the truth shall set you free. a caveat might be, and a lie can destroy your treem. perhaps the most perplexing of all, the global elite continues to herald their projections of manmade gloom and doom and try to ignore the uproar that we have had with these emails. they ignored or just changed the subject. but this recent revelation of these emails seriously calls into question the basic science that these manmade global warming fanatics claim to be
irrefuteable. looks like look at the science that is the basis of the manmade global warming advocates. i, in fact, and i would make this very clear at this moment, i, in fact, would challenge any member of congress to come here and debate me in the future on the science of this issue. let me make that clear. this congressman, i am a senior member of the science committee. i challenge any of the advocates of manmade global warming to come here and debate me on the science of the issue. we shouldn't be dismissing our oppositions, arguments, any more than those scientists should have been. we are here to make policy and let's have an honest debate on this. let's talk about the so-called global warming cycle that's being used as an excuse or as a reason to look at human
activity. so, the global warming cycle that's being caused by human activity. that's funnel to -- fundamental to this whole issue. we know there have been weather and climate cycles throughout the history of our planet going back to prehistoric times, cycle after cycle. one of the more recent, the one ignored by dr. michael mann, a cooling cycle that reduced temperatures on this planet for 00 years between 1300 and 1850. called the little ice age. amazingly, with a straight face, the global warming alarmists are losing the low point in a 500-year cooling cycle as the baseline for determining if humankind is making the planet hotter at this time. get that. we should declare an emergency
because according to the alarmists, the earth is a tiny bit, perhaps 1 degree warmer than it was at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. man -- professor mann can't wipe that out. he may try to wipe it off his graphs, but this has been well documented. i remember there was a history channel report going through the entire time of this mini ice age. our current climate cycle is no different than the other numerous cycles that preceded it. it is dishonest to create hysteria by using the end of a cycle known as the little ice age at a 500-year low as a baseline for claims that it is now getting extraordinarily warmer. on top of that, the alarmists
are claiming that it's our fault, it's the people's fault. it's us. we're the bad guys. we're the ones making the climate go up so much warmer than it normally is and using it as a baseline, 500-year low in the earth's temperatures. science question number one -- science question challenge number one, are manmade global warming advocates using an unreasonably cooler moment as the baseline for their analysis? all right. question number two, what are the causes of the climate cycles we have been talking about? the alarmists claim it's us, people. such cycles, were, of course, in the planet even before prehistoric man existed. if there were such cycles then, there must be some explanation
for the weather and temperature trends of those days. well, then what is the other explanation? many scientists believe cycles of climate have resulted from solar activity. after all, the sun is the biggest source of energy on our planet. the biggest. everything else pales in comparison. some of the revealed emails are specifically aimed at debunking this explanation by altering graphs and distorting data. the solar explanation is consistent that cycles parallel cycles taking place on other bodies, like mars or the moons of jupiter, which have similar cycles to those on our earth. but the global warming gang is intent on blaming us.
in recent years, for example, human activity has been declared the culprit causing the melting of the artic ice cap. who hasn't seen pictures of sad looking polar bears stranded there on an ice flow, obviously the victim of manmade global warming. such nonsense plays on our emotions, but it is presenting a distorted and dishonest picture of reality. yes, until recently, the arctic ice cap has been retreating. there is no doubt about that. but what about the ice caps on mars? yes, at the same time our earth's ice cap was retreating, the ice cap on was retreating, mirroring and paralleling what was going on on earth. does that indicate that the cycle we are talking about might have been caused by the sun and not by too many people driving
s.u.v.'s or using modern technology? so maybe it's the sun that has affected the habitat of the polar bears, just as other cycles have affected the habitat of the plants and animals living in the time when those cycles kicked in. by the way, there's something to keep in mind when one hears for the umpteenth that the polar bears are becoming extinct. they are not becoming extinct. in fact, the number on this planet has dramatically expanded. there are four to five times the number of polar bears in the world today than there were in the 1960's. and i have spoken before groups of students and they have been given this lie over and over again. and they are crest-fallen to hear that maybe what they have
been told are lies. yes, lies. the extinction of the polar bear is about as real as the film footage of disappearing ice caps in former vice president gore's movie "an inconvenient truth." that, too, was a scam. a special effect made of sty row foam was presented to us, especially to our children, to create the illusion that this was documenting the melting and breaking off of the arctic ice cap. it was styrofoam. strofoam. it was phony, just as many of the arguments presented in that movie were phony, were false. so here's another challenge, challenge number two. if there have been many other cycles and if the ice cap is
melting on mars just as it is here, how can this climate cycle be a result of human activity rather than solar activity? which brings us to the theory of just what man does that supposedly creates global warming. well, this allege is based on the well promoted theory that greenhouse gases, and according to alarmists, co-2 is by far the worst culprit, our trapped greenhouse gases and co-2 the worst one of all, are trapping heat in the atmosphere and the increase of co-2 levels are leading to a disastrous jump in the earth's temperature. let's look at this theory. i don't dismiss it. let's look at it and answer it. i wish the american people and the rest of us were paid an equal amount of respect by those alarmists who are advocating the manmade global warming theory. let's look at their theory now
and give it an honest look. with all the hoopla, nonscientists might believe that it is a huge part of the atmosphere. i want everybody to everyone who is listening to ask themselves, what percentage do you think that co-2 is of the atmosphere? well, they think that most people think it's a huge part. some people i have asked have suggested it was between 40% and 60% of the earth's atmosphere. well, that's wrong. wrong. people have been given a false impression. co-2, carbon dioxide is a miniscule part of our atmosphere. as i say, most of the people i talk to, even the highly educated ones think that it makes up 25%, maybe 60% of the atmosphere. in reality, it is less than, get into this, co-2 is less than
.04% of the atmosphere. so co-2 is not even 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of the atmosphere, not even 1/2 of 1% -- no, 1/2 of 1/10 of 1%. this is a miniscule part of the atmosphere that we have been led to believe of having a dramatic impact on weather patterns. and where did the miniscule amount of this co-2, as small as it is 1/2 of 1/10 of 1%, where did that come from? with all the hoopla, one would assume that it can be traced to human activity. nope. at least 70% of the co-2 in our
atmosphere has a natural source and has nothing to do with human activity. i have been in science committee hearings where very prominent scientists have suggested that it might be 80% or 90% of the co-2 in the atmosphere coming from natural sources. but let's say, ok, at least 70%. so the part of the atmosphere that is co-2-generated by man is even less than miniscule. it is a minor part of a miniscule component. and if we suppress our standard of living enough to eliminate even 1/10 of man's contribution, then one big volcano or maybe some forest fires could totally undo this supposed l reduction in co-2 and to get a 10% reduction leaves a dramatic
attack on the standard of living of our people and the re-allocation of trillions of dollars. we are to give up our own freedom and prosperity and hand over such power as i have just mentioned to a global government or even to a centralized federal government here in the united states? all for that, for something for a step forward that could be erased by a big volcano or a series of forest fires? that's insane. well, undaunted, the alarmist' point to increases to co-2, starting from such a miniscule level, however, it's like using a phony temperature baseline like they did with the end of the mini ice age, but using that as their baseline, the miniscule level of co-2, this can distort
the importance of -- the importance when someone says there has been a rise in the amount of co-2, because, to begin with, it's a very, very miniscule amount or part of our atmosphere. so, if there's an encries in that there isn't going to be the same impact. but this increase, of course, no matter what has been described to us in sinister terms that we are supposed to believe that it is making the world hotter. and so it's mankind, by increasing co-2, making the world hotter. when trying to pull this off, they don't mention that in recent times, co-2 levels have increased, but contrary to the alarmists' theory, the earth's temperatures have gone down.
remember, we are being told that the rise of co-2, which is a miniscule part, but the rise of the co-2 in our atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to warm, again, there are clearly times when co-2 has been going up, but the temperature has gone down. . if manmade co-2 which is a miniscule part of a miniscule element of the atmosphere, if that causes warming then why is it that when man kind has been admitting more and more co-2 like in the 1940's, the 1950's and the 1960's and at a time, at that same time when co-2 levels in general were rising, why was there an actual cooling going on in our climate? this is true today, too. we have an increase in co-2 but
there's been a cooling going on or at least there hasn't been a warming for the last 10 years. remember, no matter how they've tried to hide it and that attempt to hide it is very clear in the emails that have just been exposed, no matter how they try to hide it, global temperatures have not gone up for almost a decade. it should be noted that the scientific -- that scientific ice core specialists now tell us that historically over a course of 500 years co-2 increases followed temperature increases. it would appear that when it gets warmer the earth produces more co-2. the alarmists have it totally backwards and they're using that as an excuse to dramatically increase their power to control our lives. it is a flawed theory, it is the
warmer earth that creates the co-2 increase not the other way around. but that would mean, of course, human beings, if they accept that it's the earth and it's the warming of the earth that creates more co-2 that would mean that us human beings, that we're off the hook and the globalists would have no excuse for their power grab and no excuse to control us, to tax us and to regulate our away our livelihood. well, it's not getting any warmer and contrary to those trying to frighten us into giving up our freedom, co-2 is not a threat to the planet and is not a pollutant. it is not harmful to human beings or animals. it is food for plants which then give off oxygen. throughout the world greenhouses which are sometimes called hot houses are growing vegetables by pumping co-2 to feed the plants and they end up, after pumping
co-2 into these hot houses, they end up with bigger, juicier tomatoes, berries and other crops. co-2 is not a threat to human health or a threat to the planet. during ancient times before human beings there were much higher levels of co-2 in the air and life on this planet flourished. even in the oceans which were, yes, more acidic, ocean life was robust and abundant at that time. all of this makes the announcement yesterday that the e.p.a. will treat co-2 as a pollutant all the more astounding and, yes, repugnant. it is an example of the heavy-handed power grab we are up against. by declaring co-2 a pollutant, a threat to human health, they have empowered the e.p.a. to issue orders, mandates, regulations, controls and fines which will be put in place and enforced even without a vote of congress.
unelected officials declaring themselves as having this enormous power over us. this bypass passing the authority of congress is a manifestation of tyranny. i don't care if they think that they're saving the world, this is tyranny. if there are changes in the law that are required by some climate theory, let us debate them, have an honest debate that's not imposed -- let's not impose this on the american people without having elected officials be held accountable for that decision. and of course we know now the theories that we're talking about are all based on the cooked books and phony science which all makes it even worse. so now onto challenge number four which focuses on the accuracy of the statistics being used to justify manmade global warming. importantly the alarmists are raising -- importantly the alarmists who are raising all of
this ruckus, they're doing it about less than one degree of an increase in the global temperature. so we hear all of this ruckus but it's only increased even by what they're claiming, less than one degree or just about one degree over 150 years. so small inaccuracies, when you talk about one degree, small inaccuracies can have huge implications to this process. well, an investigation has found that accuracy problems, with 80% of america's national weather service stations which collected the data here in the united states and worse, our system said 80% of the stations not meeting reliable standards -- and we've been heralded as the best in the world, but what about the statistics gathered in the rest of the world, in the developing countries and in other countries? what about the statistics that
were gathered here and abroad 100 years ago? or 150 years ago? does anyone have faith in those figures? remember, that's what was fed into the computer. let's remember also, garbage in, garbage out is a truism when it comes to computers. the whole basis for this so-called irrefutable evidence of global warming rests on computer models that were based on data collected from faulty systems, perhaps just as troubling, the data fed into those computers are no longer available for reassessment. yep. the data was deleted by the research institutes, deleted just like they talked about in these hacked emails and a close reading of the recently exposed emails reveal that alterations were made in the raw data being fed into computers. they were called adjustments of the data. in short they cooked the books
and that data is no longer available. it was deleted by the research institute and cannot be looked over again for accuracy. oh, i guess we should just trust them. fortunately the ground-based censors that fed those infamous computer models are not the only source of temperature data. information is also available from research and observation satellites and weather balloons and you guessed it, that source is in conflict with ground-based data. of course no one is certain of that because all of this we're talking about was the data before adjustments were made and before it was all deleted. so how is this for a scientific challenge? defend the scientific integrity of the manmade global warming data collection process. it's got more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer. and this manmade global warming theory is the greatest scam in
history. this, of course, is only one of many scams designed to fight us into accepting draconian solutions for figure tigs problems. remember when i was a kid they said cranberries cause cancer. two years later after the cranberry industry was decimated, oh, sorry, we made a mistake. then cyclamates were causing cancer. that cost the american industry hundreds of millions of dollars. it destroyed a sugar substitute which was perfectly fine and it ended up getting america and perhaps the rest of the world hooked on high fructose corn syrup only to be found out later on that cyclamates do not -- are not cars genic at all -- carcinogenic at all. now they're free to be consumed here in the united states. then we remember dr. meryl streep, a prominent scientist and movie actress who warned us about alar only to learn that was fictitious.
the three-mile island and jane fonda, a presentation which stopped the building of nuclear power plants and made us even more dependent on foreign oil. so what did we do? we now depend more on oil and coal for our electricity because jane fonda created the impression that nuclear energy was not safe. and then during the reagan administration there was a fear about acid rain which was presented to us again with a phony baseline. they said that the lakes of the northeast and everything were becoming more acidic and they used as their baseline the time immediately in the years that were after a massive number of fires in that area turned those lakes into a base and thus the acidity was not the natural acidity that they normally were at and they were going back to the natural acidity. it was a phony baseline and it
totally distorted the so-called problem. the topper of them all, many of the very same gang now agonizingly -- now agonizing over manmade global warming, they were the same people who were warning us with similar intensity about the coming ice age and then of course we have to remember there's a big price to pay for all this. big price to pay for lies, like, for example, the report that bird shells were thinning which resulted in a global ban on d.d.t. millions of children in third world have subsequently lost their lives to malaria because of that ban. apparently birds were more important than those -- to those who made policy than those millions of poor and struggling children in the third world who lost their lives to malaria, a disease that we had controlled before we banned malaria -- banned d.d.t. the cap and trade bill rammed through the house by defeat and alarmist propaganda awaits the u.s. senate.
if it becomes law, as i said on the floor of the debate, our economy will go to hell awe and our jobs will go to china and, yes, it will affect all of us big time and that's what this is all about. changing our lives big time. what are some of the long-term changes these steely-eyed fanatics behind cap and trade and global warming and behind the copenhagen gathering want to make in our lives? it's a long one but here's some of the things they want. they want gas to double in price, maybe triple, maybe more. parking prices need to go up. parking permits need to go way up. air travel will be out of reach for ordinary people by elimination of frequent flier miles and discount tickets and simply dramatically rising the price of airplane tickets. only the rich and powerful in their private jets and limousines will be free to travel as they please. yes, there will be restrictions on our diet, embedded in the manmade global warming unit is a contingent of power freaks who
want to restrict our meat consumption by limiting production. this is based on the idea that methane from cow flat units threatens the stability of the planet's climate. this is insane. so ham burger's are out, much less back yard barbeques. the prices of electricity, just like every energy stores, would be pushed sky high, as will the price of almost everything that we consume because everything manufactured or farmed depends on -- dependents -- depends on energy. the goal is to put limits on human consumption. to these fanatics anything used and consumed that is not essential is a waste of resources. ronald reagan used to say about this crowd, they won't be satisfied until we're all living in a bird's nest. so why is congress on the verge of passing this monstrous legislation which will bolster the competitiveness of china and
india while undercutting our own economy and our way of life? this is a product of a radical environmentalist globalist coalition. they want to build a whole new world based on benevolent control by people like themselves. they have a vision of a harmonious and balanced world and they don't mind scaring us into accepting it or imposing it upon us. . this is not the e.p.a. pushing us aside, which is in and of itself contrary to what america is all about. this is about centralizing power into the hands of a government. that's what the radical environmentalists. wake up, america. we still have time to turn this
around. we must fight the globalist clique that is trying to shackle future generation americans to a debt. there are chains that are hard to break, but we must have the strength and the commitment to do so. we will not give up our freedom. and we are not powerless. we will stand together. americans of every race and religion, of every ethnic group and social status, we will fight as united pates and we will win -- patriots and we will win. members of congress need to hear from angry constituents, and i predict they will. we need to overcome this power grab and need to overcome this alliance between radical environmentalists and the globalists. but most of all, in order to win, we need to overcome apathy
among the american people. when the american people rise up in a rightous rage that our freedom will be secure. this is a power grab that is aimed at destroying our freedom. wake up, america. we should not be giving more power to united nations' panels or any other institution internationally that is composed of governments that are controlled by gangsters and thugs that we would never dream of electing here in the united states, countries that don't have freedom of press. we are going to give authority to enforce environmental laws that we never voted on or go along with the e.p.a. and push the congress aside and elected first aside and let that be imposed on us by people who haven't been elected to anything. we must stand up and defeat this power grab. wake up, america.
your freedom and prosperity are at stake. i have three children at home, little christian, anika and christian. we owe it to them and the children of this country to pass on freedom and opportunity that has been passed on to us. the sacrifice of generations of americans to provide us the democracy we have and the democratic way of fighting these bals that we have, we will not see that destroyed. we will instead use the democratic process in this fight and hold true to the principles and what was pass the on to us by generations of americans. but now it's up to us. if we don't act, this conspiracy of lies, of distortions in the scientific community, coupled with an alliance, with the
globalists with a centralized power in global government ks we must defeat them or we will not be living up to our responsibility. not living up to what we should be asked to do as americans and that is to pass on this freedom. we are united patriots and we will win. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, t
let me begin by thanking "q&ayou country. thanks your family for this task. let me can they our thanks. let me thank their families. general mcchrystal is charge of executing a civilian military plan and action to implement the strategy that the president announced last week. the president's plan emphasizes protecting the afghan people, consistent with the recommendations of general mcchrystal's assessment and includes military and civilian actions with the goal to clear, holt, build, and transfer security irresponsibility to the
afghans. -- security responsibility to the afghans. it includes partnering with the afghan national security forces to empower them to provide for afghan security the president has called for rapidly deploying an additional 30,000 u.s. soldiers and marines over the coming months, likely to be joined by of the 7000 additional soldiers from our nato and other allies participating in the afghanistan mission. the president has directed that a reduction of u.s. forces will begin in july 2011 with the location of the troop reduction to be determined by conditions on the ground. our achilles' heel in afghanistan is not a shortage of u.s. troops. it is a shortage of afghan troops.
to succeed in afghanistan, it is important that we have adequate afghan partners in combat operations so that after a town is killed of taliban, security forces left to maintain order are afghan forces. in the key promise of hellman, the ratio of u.s. troops to afghan troops is about five u.s. troops to one afghan soldier. the desired ratio should be much different, one afghan company to one u.s. company, leading to three afghan companies for every one u.s. company as a training progresses. currently, the 10,000 u.s. marines in helmand province have approximately 1500 afghan soldiers and 700 afghan police, it just over 2000 combined afghan security forces.
it doubles the number of u.s. troops without damage level increase and afghan troops will only worsen a ratio in which our forces are already matched up with your afghan troops then they can and should partner with ah. it raises a troubling question. why aren't there more afghan forces? by most accounts, afghan soldiers are good fighters, are motivated, and are well respected by the afghan people. there were recent news reports that the afghan army soldiers were declining to go on some missions because they said they were not there to fight the rest.
there are 80 combat battalions. about half of those are listed as capable of independent operations or of leading operations that coalitions support. last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen said that there are not that many afghan soldiers that are in the liege. there are very few. i wonder if they can give us the ground truth as to how many are present and how many are partnered with u.s. troops and how many units are in the lead in combat operations inland. in addition to the national
security forces, there is a community defense initiative and which appears to be an african version of the sons of iraq. i hope our witnesses will describe this initiative to discuss the strengths and weaknesses. i understand the press and has corrected his military commanders not to begin clearing an area and as our troops will be able to turn that area over to african security forces. what they could clarify is at what point in the "claire transfer" -- clear transferred" they will take over for area security. it is a plan that we hold, the afghans hole, and we hold together. it is not nearly as effective to have u.s. marines standing on street corners in afghan villages as it is to have an afghan policeman or a soldier.
i agree u.s. troops should not be left for month holding street corners in villages recently cleared a telegram from the -- recently cleared taliban. it will speak television propaganda and trade u.s. forces as occupiers and could lead to greater instead of lesser afghan dependency upon us. the present strategy makes clear that our commitment to the future of afghanistan requires action on the part of the government of afghanistan to fight corruption, deliver services, institute policies for reintegration of local talent and fighters, and it just other urgent problems. . karzai -- president karzai
pledged to do this and president obama will hold them to that. they will thbegin reductions to impart a sense of focus and urgency, something that has been lacking up until now and is essential to success. president carkarzai has acknowledged the update st. "it is good we are facing a deadline" and that the afghan people must "begin to stand on our own feet." i like to hear from our witnesses whether they support and agree with the president's decision to establish a july 2011 date to begin a u.s. troop reduction. senator mccain? >> thank you. i want to thank general mcchrystal and ambassador i can
vary for joining us today. i want to thank you both for your distinguished service to our country. i want to express my deep gratitude to the americans you lead as well as their families who are serving and sacrificing at this moment. i want to reiterate that i support the president's policy for afghanistan. i think he made the right decision, a brave decision against the objections of many in his own party. to reject half measures on the counterinsurgency strategy into resources properly. i think the policy can succeed. i think it deserves robust public support both from the public and democrats alike. my main concern is the decision to begin with drawing our forces in 2011 regardless of conditions on the ground. we discuss this issue a lot last
week. i appreciate the efforts. they are trying to clarify the meaning of this decision. i understand that this marks the beginning of a process. the pace of our drawdown will be conditioned. the fundamental problem remains. we have announced a date divorced from conditions on the ground when we will start to withdraw our troops. it does not matter whether we call it a cliff or a ramp or anything else. it is still an exit sign and send a wrong signal to our friends and enemies. the administration and i will have to agree to disagree. it matters immensely what signals the sand. that is why i was very pleased to see that secretary gates is in kabul today and that the message he delivered was "we are in this thing to win." i cannot agree more.
integrated, beginning at the top with our distinguished witnesses today. we've all read the reports of difference between you gentleman. i know you are both professionals. i trust that any tensions that you may have had are now passed and that you are now focused, and as i am and as i trust the president is, on the future of your common mission and on succeeding. this requires hud joint civilian-military campaign plan that we were told last week that are civilian and military leaders are in the process of drafting. we heard a lot about numbers, but troop levels and civilian surges, we heard about blr s in various broke -- d dollars. what is our strategy for supporting afghan leaders and
reform leaders and strengthening the government? what is our strategy for working with president karzai and getting the best performance possible from him and his government? i hope that we can gain greater clarity in this hearing today on the elements of our civilian- military strategy. we ask questions but we cannot lose sight of one important fact -- we now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of the vital national security priority, defeating al qaeda and its violent extremist allies in afghanistan, pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again served as bases for attacks against us and our allies. americans need to know why winning this war is essential to our country's security. they need to know things in afghanistan will get worse before they get better. sadly, casualties will likely
rise in the year to come. ultimately, we will succeed. americans need to know these things, especially those brave americans who are leading this fight. if you take only one thing back with you to our fellow citizens in afghanistan, let it be this -- america and this congress is fully behind you. we believe in them and believe in their mission. we believe that they can succeed. and we in congress will do all in our power to get them everything they need to win, and then to return home with the honor they deserve and that banks of a grateful nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. general mcchrystal, we will start with you. >> mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the chance to appear before you
today. >> is your microphone on? >> sir, it is. i welcome this opportunity to testify on the way ahead in afghanistan and i am pleased to do so with ambassador eikenberry, an old friend. let me begin by saluting the bravery of the men of the women of the security forces in afghanistan. they are anchored by over 60,000 brave americans, our close partners, and a 43-nation coalition. we honor the sacrifices of the fallen, the veterans, and their families. we also recognize the toll paid every day by our counterparts in the afghan security forces and by afghan soaker -- civilians who ultimately suffer the most. it is for them and for all of us that we seek a stable afghanistan, a defunct al qaeda -- [unintelligible] >> you will have to remain
seated, please. and no more outbursts, please. thank you, general, you may continue. >> and a secure future in that vital region of the world. i first deployed to afghanistan in 2002. i have commanded forces there every year since. there is much in afghanistan that i have yet to fully understand. for all of us, afghanistan is a challenge that is best approached with a balance of determination and humility. why u.s. forces had been in afghanistan for eight years, the afghans have been added for more than 30 per day are frustrated with international efforts that have failed to meet their expectations, confronted with the crisis of confidence to view this as insufficient and the government as corrupt, or at the very least, inconsequential. we face a complex and resilience insurgency. the afghan taliban is a
permanent threat to the government of afghanistan. they aspire to once again become the government of afghanistan. the insurgent groups have more limited geographic objectives but they are no less lethal. all three groups are supported to some degree by external groups outside of afghanistan. they coexist within narcotics networks, feeding off of insecurity in the region. the mission in afghanistan is undeniably difficult, and success will require a steadfast commitment and incur significant costs. i participated fully in the president's assessment and decision making process and was supported multiple opportunities to provide my recommendations and best military advice, which i did. combined with insight and policy considerations within our
government, i believe the decisions reflect a realistic and effective approach. to pursue our core goal of producing al qaeda -- reducing al qaeda and present -- and preventing their return to afghanistan, we must deny their access to the afghan population and strengthen the afghan security forces. this means that we must reverse the taliban and create the time and space to develop afghan security and governance capacity. the president's decision recognizes that the next 18 months will likely be decisive and ultimately enable success. i fully support the president's decision. the president also reiterated how this decision supports our national interest. the taliban -- holding back the taliban is a prerequisite for the defeat of al qaeda. the mission is not only important, it is also achievable. we can and will accomplish this
mission. let me briefly explain why i believe so. my confidence derives first from the afghan result, since it is their action double ultimately matter most in this conflict. with their interest and by extension of our own secure. second, we do not confront the popular insurgency for the taliban have now widespread constituency, have a history of failure in power, and lack vision. third, where a strategy is applied, we showed that we can establish more effective security and more credible governance. finally, afghans do not regard us as occupiers. they do not wish for us to remain forever, yet they see it our support as a necessary bridge for future security and stability. i have been back in afghanistan for six months now. i believe that with the president's decision and the
ongoing reforms i just outlined, we are empowered with a greater sense of clarity, capability, commitment, and confidence. let me start with clarity. the president's recently completed review of our strategy to include deepen pointed questioning of all assumptions and recommendations has produced greater clarity of our mission and objectives. we also have greater clarity on the way for a three additional forces will begin to deploy shortly, and by this time next year, new security gains will be eliminated by specific indicators, and it will be clear that the insurgency has lost momentum. by the summer of 2011, it will be clear to the afghan people that the insurgency will not win. giving them the chance to side with their government. from that point lord, what we plan to have fewer combat forces in harm's way, we will remain partnered with the afghan security forces in a supporting role to consolidate and
solidified their gains. results may come more quickly and we must demonstrate progress toward measurable objectives, but there are no silver bullets. all to its success will be the cumulative effect sustain pressure across multiple lines of operation. increasing our capability is about much more than troop numbers. we have been implementing organizational and operational changes that are already reflected in improvements and our effectiveness. the additional forces announced by president obama are significant. forces to increase our capacity to train the national security forces and forces to partner with afghan army and police and expanded security zones in key areas will provide us the ability to reverse the insurgent momentum and a balk -- and deny the taliban the access to the population they require to survive. this translates into the credibility in the minds of afghan to demand proof not only
that we want to protect them but that we can. in a world of perceptions, the hope of an afghan mother, the aspiration of an afghan child, this can be decisive. our commitment is watched intently and constantly judged by our allies and by our enemies. the commitment of 30,000 additional u.s. forces, along with additional coalition forces and growing afghan national security force numbers will be a significant step toward expanding security in critical areas and in demonstrating resolve. the commitment of all coalition nations will be buttressed by a clear understanding of how we mitigate risk. i will briefly mentioned three. the first is the afghan government's credibility deficit which must be recognized by all. it is a critical area of focus and change. equally important is our ability to accelerate development of the afghan security forces.
measures such as increased pay and incentives, leadership training, and expanded partnerships aren't part and to position the afghan national security forces to assume responsibility of long-term security. third, extremist that operate on both sides of the border it must be mitigated by enhanced cross- border engagement. looking ahead, i am confident we have both the right strategy and the right resources. every trip around afghanistan reinforces my confidence in the coalition and afghan forces who stand alongside in this effort. but i also find confidence and those who are trying to help. i have confidence when and afghan farmer chooses to harvest wheat instead of poppies, or when a young person joins the police. or when a group of villagers
results to reject the local insurgency. we face many challenges in afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality -- now that the afghan people nor the international community want afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. and if we are to be confident of our mission and our prospects, we must also be accurate in our assessment of progress. we know ourselves, our leaders, and the american people transparency and candor, because the price to be paid is high and the stakes are even higher. in closing, we would like to thank you and your colleagues for your support of the american men and women currently serving in afghanistan and to tell you a bit about them. we risked letting numbers like 30,000 role of our times without remembering they are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters serving far from home, selfless and their sacrifices for each of us.
the other day i asked a young combat experience sgt where he was on 9/11. and his answer, getting braces removed, reminded me that it had been more than eight years since 9/11. many service members and families have sacrificed much. but as i see them in action at remote bases, on patrol, partnering with afghan forces, recovering at combat hospitals, they do not talk about all that they have given up. they talk about all that they have accomplished and their determination in this endeavor. this is not a force of rookies are dilettantes. the brigade commander is completing his fourth tour in afghanistan, and his experience and expertise is reflected in the force that represents you. all that felt -- all have felt fear and loneliness, most have lost comrades, none have lost
heart. i see maturity beyond their years. in their actions, i see a commitment to succeed in a commitment to each other. i am confident that i share your pride in what these great americans are doing for their country and for afghanistan, and it will be my privilege to accept questions on their behalf. >> thank you very much, to mcchrystal. ambassador eikenberry. >> thank you for the opportunity to present my views on afghanistan today, and i would like to ask that my whole statement be submitted for the record. >> thank you. it will be. >> last week it was point president obama presented the administration's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. his decision came after an intensive, delivered to of, far reaching review. i am honored to have been a part of that. i think that the course the president has outlined offers the best path to stabilize it
can stand and to ensure that al qaeda cannot regain a foothold to plan new attacks against us. i can say without equivocation that i fully support this approach. i consider myself privileged to serve as the united states ambassador, and to represent an amazing team of diplomats, development specialists, and civilian experts who formed the most capable and dedicated united states embassy anywhere in the world today. i am extraordinarily proud of them. i am also honored to testify alongside general stanley mcchrystal, my professional colleague and friend of many years. i want to say from the outset that general mcchrystal and i are united in a joint effort for civilian and million rigid military personnel -- where civilian and military personnel work together. we cannot accomplish our objective without this kind of cooperation.
the united states is a critical juncture in our involvement in afghanistan. on december 1, the president ordered 30,000 additional troops to deploy to afghanistan on an accelerated timetable with the goal of breaking the insurgency momentum, hastening an improving the training of the afghan national security forces, and establishing security in key parts of the country. on the civilian side, we aim to increase deployment and find it -- and provide essential services and to improve the critical ministries in the economy at the national level. the steps taken together, i believe, will help remove insurgents from the battlefield and build support for the afghan government. as the president said, we will be clear about what to do -- to expect from those who receive our assistance. after a difficult election, the afghan government does show signs of recognizing the need to deliver better governance and security.
we await urgent, concrete steps and a number of areas. -- in a number of areas. i would also like to briefly discuss the three main pillars of our efforts in cannot stand, security, governance, and development general mcchrystal has already addressed improving security and building the national security forces. since assuming the post, i have made a special point of getting outside of kabul to see conditions first hand. i fully concur with his assessment that the security situation remains serious. sending additional u.s. and other nato-isaf forces to afghanistan is critical to retain -- to regaining the initiative, and i am confident that as these troops are rise, the situation will stabilise and turned in our favor. additional troops will also permit us to expand our work with the afghan army and the afghan police said that they can take a larger role in providing
the security of their own people. as president obama said, the transition to afghan responsibility will begin in the summer of 2011, when we expect afghan security forces to began assuming needed responsibility for defending their own country. moving on from security, the second pillar of our comprehensive strategy focuses on governance. at the national and sub-national level, our overarching goal is to improve governance so that afghans may benefit, see the benefits of a government, and so that the insurgency loses its support. one of the major impediments -- impediments is the government of afghanistan's lack of credibility with its own people. to strengthen its legitimacy, our approach at the national level is on improving key ministries, by increasing the number of civilian and technical
advisor and providing more development assistance directly through these ministries. by focusing on ministries that deliver central security and services, we can accelerate the building of an afghan government that is effective and accountable. at the provincial and district levels, we work jointly with their military partners, to our provincial construction teams, and district support teams to help build afghan capacity, particularly in southern and eastern afghanistan. underpinning all of these efforts is the need to combat corruption and promote the rule of law. with our assistance, the afghan government is steadily building law enforcement institutions to fight organized crime and drug trafficking. in his inaugural address, president karzai stated his
intention to make better appointments in his cabinet and to implement an anti-corruption strategy. we were encouraged by the statements. the cultivation of poppy and trafficking in opium also continued to have a debilitating effect on the afghan society. our strategy involves demand reduction, efforts by law enforcement agencies, and interdict drug set -- shipments and support for illicit agricultural development. the narcotics problem will never have a solution without economic development. this leads to the third pillar of our effort, which is development. in recent months, we adjusted our approach to focus on building key elements of afghanistan's private sector economy, increasing our emphasis on agriculture, enhancing government revenue collection, and improving coordination and assistance in the united states government and
the international community. these steps taken produced improvements in lives of ordinary afghans, and contribute regularly to better governments. rebuilding the farm sector in particular is essential to reduce the pool of unemployed men who formed a recruiting base for extremist groups. we estimate that 80% of the afghan population derived their income directly or indirectly from agriculture. mr. chairman, i want to emphasize that we are concentrating on what is essential and attainable. the president's strategy is based on a pragmatic concession -- assessment that a sustainable government and economy for afghanistan are essential to the sec -- to success. we need a viable afghan government so that our forces can trot down -- can draw down.
in closing, i mentioned two important risk in carrying out our strategy. i know that general mcchrystal shares the spirit the first that is as and by that everything that we do, afghanistan may struggle to take over the task of governance and security on a timely basis, and second, in our partnership with pakistan. the efforts we are undertaking in afghanistan will fall short of our strategic goals unless there is more progress in eliminating the sanctuary's used by the afghan taliban and their associates intact -- in pakistan. if the main elements of the president's plan are executed, and it's our afghan partners and allies do their part, i am confident that we can achieve our strategic objective. i say this with conviction, because for the first time in my three tours of duty in afghanistan, all the elements of our national power are being deployed with the full support of the president and
increasingly our allies. achieving our goals for afghanistan will not be easy. i am optimistic that we can succeed with the support of congress. our mission was under resources for years but it is now one of our government's highest priorities. substantial development form -- bonds and hundreds of more civilians. we will soon have increased our civilian presence in kabul over three fold, and in the field over sixfold, and this is of the past year. we will need more. u.s. foreign assistance is comparatively small, but is essential for action for the total amount spent in afghanistan over the last eight years. additional resources will be necessary and we look for to sharing more details of our anticipated needs with congress in the coming days and weeks. mr. chairman, afghanistan represents a daunting challenge and success is not guaranteed, but it is possible. with the additional troops and other resources provided by the
president and with the help of congress, we will work tirelessly to ensure hawkeye that never again finds refuge in afghanistan and threatens our country and our homeland. thank you, mr. chairman. look for to your question. >> thank you very much, ambassador. we will try seven-minute rounds in hope we get to everybody by the time that you have to leave us. general, let me ask you the first question. is it your personal professional judgment that the president's strategic plan is the correct plan? >> yes, mr. chairman, it is. >> are there any elements of the plan you do not agree with? >> i am comfortable with the entire plan, mr. chairman. >> ambassador, do you support the president's plan in each of its elements? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> the president has set a
specific date of july 2011 for the start of u.s. troop reduction. it is specific and it is set and directed by the president he has also indicated that the pace of the reduction is dependent on conditions on the ground. general, do you fully agreed with the july 2011 date which the president directed is the start of productions of some u.s. forces? >> mr. chairman, i do not like to explain why. >> please. >> from the military strategy point, i do it in a wider context. first and most importantly, the president and other leaders in our government have stated that commitment to a strategic partnership with afghanistan and the afghan people, so i believe that the context provides that we will not abandon them gives them a consistency in our commitment to them and some assurance for the future. on the other in the bad in the very near term, the president
has provided additional combat forces which i described in my opening statement as being able to provide us time and space to reverse taliban momentum and make progress against the insurgency in the near term, which i think the next 18 months are critical. during that period, we should be able to degrade the capacity of the insurgency significantly. simultaneous to that, we will grow the capacity of the government of afghanistan's security capability, the afghan army and the afghan police specifically, but also supported by governance. when we hit july 2011, that is not a significant factor in our campaign plan. i think it has a positive reenforcing function on our afghan partners reminding them that although we have a long- term commitment, we have shared responsibility. i do want to put out that i
understand that there is an information operation challenge by the taliban particularly which will try to paint this in a particular picture. deal with that. >> how many afghan soldiers are now partnered with u.s. combat troops and are in the fight in regional command south and east where the major factor -- fighting is occurring? what is that number? >> sir, it will permit me to pull out my numbers here. >> if you could just give us the number of afghan soldiers, one number, partnered with u.s. combat forces in the fight? >> in south, that would be 16,700. >> how about east? >> that would be 23,300 army. neither of those numbers include the police.
>> in one operation in hellman, we got 1000 marines right there and there is 150 afghan troops. when we were in helmand province, the ratio where we visited was -- i may have misspoken. there are five u.s. troops for each afghan troops. i think i stated it correctly there are 1000 marines joined by 150 afghans. that seven u.s. troops for every one afghan. given the number of troops that are afghan troops there, why are these ratios so is skit -- inconsistent with what our own doctrine is, which is that we should have a one-to-one partnership, when unit of hours for one unit of the afghans, hopefully leading to one unit of marsh 23 afghan units by the end of the partnering period?
how come the ratio is so reversed from what our doctrine requires? >> the primary reasons are there are not enough afghan national army or afghan national police. the main focus of our coalition elements has recently been in the south appeared in the helmand area, you are correct. it was about one afghan security force participant to five coalition. that is now one to 3.6, and by the end of january, we will have a to -- one to 2.3. >> the british and others insist on one to one. they are partnering with the afghan troops prepare requirement, which they insist on, one to one to begin with. why do we not have that same insistence and determination,
since partnering and training the afghan forces is such an important part of our mission? >> chairman, i could not agree more. there simply are not and not in the afghan army to meet everyone's requirement. we're fielding, as we speak this month, 1900 additional afghan army soldiers between december and january. that is 16 new companies all going to the helmand province $3 we will have 20,000 thereby what time? -- >> we will have 20,000 there by what time? >> even after those additions, even -- is that right? >> by april, we will have another brigade of afghan national forces that will go to the south -- i am sorry, two brigades by summer. we are throwing everything we
can build in the afghan army into that area. i absolutely agree with your point. >> we have been told -- gerald jones indicated in a news interview last weekend, i believe -- that currently seven of the 34 afghan provinces today, 20% of their crops -- had success right now. security, economic development, and reasonably good governance. why not transfer responsibility now, says the conditions exist now for successful transition? -- since the conditions exist now for successful transition? >> the afghans are a different situation here they are a sovereign country. it is different from iraq. >> by the secretary gates and
secretary clinton repeatedly say that transition is going to begin in july 2011, if the conditions for transition in seven provinces exist now? why wait? >> center, the city of kabul -- senator, the city of kabul has already transferred. they're not coalition forces operating in other areas. the legal mandate that might be executed to debt -- to do that is a formality. they have the lead in most of those areas right now. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador eikenberry, during the decisionmaking process, there were several tables that you sent back that were classified yet revealed to the
media that indicated you had strong reservations about the search. -- surge. have those reservations been resolved in your mind? >> center, i am 100% behind the decisions and the resources, absolutely. >> general mcchrystal, secretary clinton said today that we are in this thing to win. you agree with that statement and you have what you need to win? >> i agree with the secretary's statement. i think we have all we need to win. i think the ultimate winners will be the afghan people. >> what do you expect we will have achieved by 2011? i understand there will be a major review of the plan by december 2010, and what you
expect to have achieved by 2011 when his response is a firm date for beginning withdrawal of the u.s. troops? and we will have benchmarks that you will be sharing with us, i am sure. go ahead. >> absolutely. the most important thing done by december 2011 is defense -- convince the majority of the afghan people that we are going to win, we end the afghan government, and that that is going to be the direction -- we and the afghan government, and that is going to be the direction three we will reverse the perception of momentum, because success is about what the people believe. we will be able between now and december 2011 to have reversed that momentum, to increase the number of security zones that we
have, providing in more areas contiguous security. for example, of farmers in the central helmand river valley, secured now by a combination of afghan forces and marine, who have done a great job, he will be able to move product all the way from their to can the heart -- from there to kandahar. we will be able to increase its ability to not only lived in his neighborhood but live like more normally. >> what we have not achieve those objectives by july 2011? what do we do then, since we have a firm date for the beginning of withdrawal? >> reassess our strategy as we go along and make decisions based on the situation. >> but we still have a firm date. you said, general mcchrystal,
that success in this operation will be determined in the minds of the afghan people. what would you say to afghans, pakistanis, and others in the region who may feel like hedging their bets or sitting on the fence because they doubt america's commitment and resolve? >> sir, there will be some who are in opposition and some who are in ignorance and will try to use that as a point of propaganda. i think that if we point out the long-term strategic partnership out both for the partnership -- the government of pakistan -- afghanistan and our pakistani partners, and the additional forces, i think that we can make the point effectively. >> and it is obvious from your experience in afghanistan that the afghan people do not want the return of the taliban, and that is a significant advantage, one that perhaps is not being made as clear to the american
people, not only because of the things they might to to harm the united states but the terrible treatment of the afghan people, including women in fact -- women in afghanistan? >> senator, that is absolutely great. i have never seen evidence that the taliban have popular support, like a political liberation movement. they get their support largely through coercion. that average people are simply waiting to see whether or not their government can speak that insurgency. >> it is still your call to train 400,000 afghan security forces by 2013? >> sir, we need to significantly increase the security forces. i recommend that we stand -- stay on an aggressive timeline to reach that, but it just those goals on two things. if the insurgency size decreases, it might be able to be adjusted. and the ability of the afghan
government to provide recruits, retention, and those things which enable growth. >> what level do you expect by july 2011? >> i believe between the army and police total, it will approach 300,000 people. >> what about the strain on the men and women in the military, general? >> i think the strain is significant but i was out at walter reed yesterday morning, and as i went through with my wife and visited several when did not just in afghanistan but in iraq, every soldier we spoke to talk about wanting to get back into the fight, even though was clear many would be challenged to do that. every soldier i see in the field expresses the same sort of focus. while there is clear strain on families, and we cannot understate the importance of the programs that this body has done for wounded warriors and for families, i believe that this
force wants to win and i believe that commitment is the most important thing. >> at the important is it that we find and bring to justice osama bin laden, and what effect would that have on our effort there? >and i would be interested in your view, ambassador. >> sir, i believe he is an iconic figure whose survival emboldens al qaeda as a franchising organization across the world. it would not defeat al qaeda to have him captured or killed, but i do not believe that we can finally defeat al qaeda until he is captured or killed. >> until he is captured were brought to justice. ambassador? >> i would only add to that that it does remain important to the american people and indeed the people of the world that one day osama bin laden is either captured or killed or brought to justice for his responsibility
for the murder of many americans and citizens of the world on the 11th of september, 2001. >> i thank the witness list and i know you have an enormous task ahead of you. you have our support and our thoughts and prayers are with you. we look forward to make your life miserable by coming over to visit you. >> thank you, senator. senator lieberman. >> i promise to come with senator mccain and promised to the extent that i can to make his visit less miserable for the two of you. i thank you for your extraordinary service. i wanted to say on what you said. it is obvious that he disagrees on the question of the deadline. or what everyone calls it, july 2011. the exit strategy. but he made in importance
statement today but he will have to agree to disagree. and go forward, because he supports the basic program. i hope it sets the tone for people in both parties, no matter what they feel about one or another detail of the decision the president made it -- it is now american policy. and the truth is, we ought to come together behind you, general mcchrystal and to treat your leading, and admiral -- ambassador eikenberry, and give you 18 months were you don't have any carping or backbiting from washington to get the job done for us. i never felt uncomfortable or critical about the length of the deliver to process the president conducted, but i thought the worst thing about it was it appeared that people associated were leaking documents are arguments to try
to affect public opinion one was this alleged e-mail that you sent, ambassador eikenberry, because none of us saw it. i did not see it. i appreciate what you said to senator mccain, that you have a good working relationship with general mcchrystal. but what the media was reporting was that the substance of the metal washer concerned that if we sent -- the e-mail was that if we sent more troops, it took pressure off the afghan government. the media is talking about this. it is best to give you a chance to common in public. to what extent the publication of that e-mailed, with its skepticism that a lot of people in washington shared about the government in kabul, what effect if any had said had on your
relationship with president karzai and the government, and to deal with the substance, which what we heard of the e- mail, it had a substantial policy argument. first we better get the afghans to shape up before we send in more troops. >> let me take the second question first. there was a very delivered to the review process that both general mcchrystal talked about, and during that reprocess, all of us were in courage to render our best analysis and advice, and it was extraordinary given the consequences of the decision. all of us had opportunities in video teleconferences, face-to- face discussions, through written correspondence to submit our views. the second point i want to make is that at no time, senator, was i opposed to additional forces
being sent to afghanistan. i shared general mcchrystal's security analysis that he conducted. it was comprehensive than it was to record the situation in parts of afghanistan -- it was comprehensive and correct. parts of afghanistan still remain very difficult. the only way to address those problems is additional forces, whether u.s. or non-u.s. nato forces. where i have an absolute consensus -- we need to it celebrate the building of the afghan army and police. the additional -- the best way to do that is additional u.s. forces. we all have questions about additional forces, and it is important to understand the number, the timeline, the purpose, and the context. and the third point i make, with the president's defining of the mission and the clarity and what ways we are going to use and
what resources would be allocated against that at that point in time, i was one hand% and am 100% supportive of the decision that was made. with regard to the effect on my relations with the afghan government, i maintain, senator, good relations with president karzai, and our embassy rate -- maintains excellent relations with the government of afghanistan and we will continue to improve on what is already a good working relationship. >> i appreciate your answer. when i was last there in august, it was clear that you had a good and honest relationship with president karzai, including disagreements but a commitment to one another. that is exactly what we want. general mcchrystal, following up, the leak of the e-mailed has no lasting effect on your ability to work with ambassador eikenberry? if we employ all elements of our
national resources to afghanistan, the relationship between the two of you it is critically important. >> it is fine, senator. we work together literally every day. we have dinner together and that is an absolute misperception. and we also know that we are only going to be successful together, also all of our coalition and afghan partners. >> thank you. when secretary gates was before the committee last week, he said that you were working on a joint civilian-military plan just as general petreaus and ambassador crocker developed for iraq in 2007. i wanted to ask you whether the secretary is correct, are you writing such a plan? and if so, can you tell us a little bit about the process by which the plan is being written? >> actually, if i could, there
is an existing civil-military plan from back in august after confined work. we had signed a joint campaign plan. general petreaus reputed along with ambassador holbrooke and said it was the best civil- military plan that he'd ever seen. it was -- we are in the process of revising the plan based on the implementation of the new strategy. this plan is not a document that sits on a shelf. to give you an example, the integration that follows from this plan at the national level, we have 14 national level working group spirit we have a national level working group for agriculture, one for infrastructure development -- these are fully integrated teams on these working groups. in agriculture, members of the usaid said on the team, the
department of agriculture, and from general mcchrystal command, we have the national guard sitting on their, and more from military command. i could go through all of these various functional groups that we have established. that is at the national level, horizontal, but vertical leap from kabul all the way down to the district, we have a fully integrated seville -- civil- military integration. >> do you want to add to that? the lead integration at the staff level to work on the next phase of the plan? >> we absolutely do, on a daily basis. >> thank you both. thank you very much. >> center with her -- senate wicker. >> when there is fighting near the pakistan-afghan border area, and we are engaged with
the enemy insurgents, what had been the rules of engagement with regard to what our troops can do when the enemy retreats back into pakistan? >> the intent of our rules of engagement is always to protect our forces. never take away from our forces the ability to protect themselves or their well-being. we have the ability to fire across the border, artillery, air strikes, the fare -- direct fire weapons, and that actually happens with a fair amount of regularity, but it happens with coordination. we have mechanisms in place with the pakistani army so that as an incident occurs, before we shoot, we immediately contact them and work out the details so that they in fact improve the engagement with the enemy. that reduces -- approved the engagement with the enemy. that reduces misunderstanding. we try to make sure we do not create issues. we also try to prevent but the
pakistani military -- the pakistani military and thus, preventing any kind of scene 3 >> we do not pursue across the border. we do not have the ability to do that, is that correct? >> i like to take that part for the record, whether they actually legally can, we have not been doing that. we have not been going across on the ground. >> so they are under orders not to do that? >> let me take that for the record. >> i wondered, because you had testified that organizational operational changes were going to need to be implemented. i was curious that you wanted to take for the record that question, too, that whether or our ability to pursue the enemy across the border, with the cooperation of the pakistanis
might be part of those changes? so thank you for that. and i will appreciate your answer there. mr. embassador, -- ambassador, there are going to be afghan parliamentary elections next year. it is beyond dispute that the presidential election was riddled with fraud, and that the turnout was much lower than expected because of the intimidation by the taliban. what are our lessons learned from the presidential election to help us going forward to the parliamentary elections? >> center, clearly the presidential election in afghanistan was a very difficult process. there was fraud. there was in areas of
afghanistan that were challenged by insecurity, there was lowered the voter turnout. i would emphasize, however, that the rule of law and the rules according to the constitution remained intact. and for that, the afghan people are proud. when there was a change of political power k inabul before, it took place with the war lords shooting rockets down into the sea kabul. they are proud that they made it to this process, difficult as it was. what lessons were learned? there has to be improvement in the electoral system of afghanistan. the commission which has the oversight for the running of the election needs improvement and help from the international community in that regard. secondly, i think the afghans are politically going to have to come together and look at the election cycles that they have established right now, where between this year and the year
2024, at every year except one has got elections. they are going to work hard at that pace to have elections. and third, there will have to be reformed and work done for voter registration to get a better handle on who is actually eligible to vote out there. i think that the afghan parliament and president karzai's administration over the next months will be looking at this. by now the parliamentary elections are scheduled in the spring. that will be a very ambitious timeline. i know it has security consequences. it is a major point on the agenda -- political agenda for afghanistan and we are talking with the government about this. >> is a major point of your political agenda to provide better security against coercion of the voters? and what would be our plans for that? and let me interject -- were you surprised at the low turnout?
>> i was, senator, not on the day of the elections. if you ask me when i came in first on this tour of duty in may of 2009, several months before the election, i would have suggested a much higher voter turnout in eastern and southern afghanistan. one of the key factors that voter was not high it was in security. -- that voter turnout was not high was insecurity. it is not surprising. i was surprised to see how far security had trended downward. >> is a major agenda item providing better security? >> i defer to what major mcchrystal would say? >> absolutely, senator. >> president karzai in his
inauguration speech mentioned his desire to convene -- and it is been further and elaborated on by spokesman saying that the members of the taliban would be invited to this meeting. was this an american idea? i understand much of the president's inaugural address was written in consultation with americans. is that our view, mr. ambassador, that this would include the taliban? >> i know he has discussed holding such a meeting. he's articulate the meeting bosporus would gain the sexes -- a consensus among the people and renewed their support -- he has
articulated that the meeting's purpose would gain consensus among the people and renewed their support. i have not discussed that with president karzai. >> do you have an opinion with regard to whether that would be advisable? >> with regard to political tensions between -- discussions between government of afghanistan and the taliban, that is very much a political question for the afghan government. the principles that president karzai has set forth about discussion of anybody rejoining afghan society, taliban rejoining afghan society, the sets of principles would be that they would renounce their ties to international terrorism, renounce violence, and no. 3, follow the constitution of the government of the afghanistan
-- those are entirely consistent with our own views. >> thank you. >> too quick procedural point. the microphones can be left on. you don't need to switch them on and off each time. secondly, we expect that we will have an opportunity for a brief second round. we expect that opportunity will be present. senator ree. -- reed. >> the rules of engagement in afghanistan -- that is based on your experience, your understanding of counterinsurgency warfare, the experience of the soviets before us, and it is not that you are directed to do that by anyone.
is that correct? >> that is correct. before i deployed out, i did watch the situation going on. i had formed opinions but got no specific direction. >> one of the issues here is not only the increase in the size of forces but the unanimity of effort. that has several dimensions three core operations, counter inter -- counter narcotic efforts, civilian court nation, operation with nato, and cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan, intelligence operations versus tactical operations on the field. can you both tell us what you're doing specifically to address the issue of unity of effort? .
we have moved to put all the elements that operate under the control of the single battle space owner. i will let him talk more about what they have done. we have established a mash up so each regional commander has a senior civilian rat that is right next to him all the time. -- rep that is right next to him all the time. we work to strange the structure of our special operating forces so they come under either the
regional commanders and make sure they are implemented. what we cannot do is have multiple wars of being fought. we have to have won overall effort. there is still a distance to go. there are national limitations. there are cultural limitations. we have made huge progress. the last point i will make is our effort to partner with the afghans start with the ministry of defense, which is much more riposte -- robust family did before. i see the minister's almost every day. for we are planning -- we are planning the fight together, talking about the fight after work together. that goes to the lower levels. the closer we get that, it gives as unity of effort. >> four poitns in our own
efforts and the unity side. within the government itself. i mentioned as an example some of these working groups that we have established an agriculture working group. we are prodded the excess we have pulled together. you will not have one for agricultural group meeting with the u.s. head and another led by the department of agriculture. if you were to go with in a will of rigid rule of law, you will find fbi, the department of justice, and the military. the second point above the ordination. -- about the coordination. as you get outside kabul, for the first time i to the believe we have it latched up well.
but is not a political adviser, but a fully empowered coli goal that has responsibility for all the agencies. it can take the resources assigned an can allocate them so that they are in support a major military effort. the third point is with our unity that we have with the international community. it is difficult and challenging and it is the mission. we have more work to do in that area. that is important. afghanistan is one to meet international commitment for many more years. we need to ensure that success. q. is the key partner for our unity of effort? it is for the afghan people. as we see more competency, we will be encouraged to lead the
effort. we will go down to their minister. we will help them. they will be in the lead. we will be in support of the effort. >> in terms of the civilian surge, in the duration of the service, i think there are some agencies that are giving this efforts three months or four months in terms of personal assignment. is that adequate? >> we have made great progress. we have support of most of our departments and agencies. we are really getting that turned around. there is a real commitment there. the afghans have described -- started a major task force. it is like to be there fbi. our fbi has sent it to the mentors to work with them.
the initial plan is that the mentor would be there for several months and rotate out. you cannot build trust and a couple of months. it has to be a long-term endeavor. he has 10 agents in afghanistan where making a lot of progress. >> general, mcchrystal, you may want to comment. even with the most dedicated and talented government in kabul, the ability to reach out into the provinces is limited. it is limited by the constitution. the governors are appointed by president karzai. limit -- limited by the ability to raise it locally. you will have to fill in the gap. it seems to be similar to the issue in iraq where military units and the civilian
counterparts were using funds to jumpstart some of the activity. is that your plan, essentially? let it is. we receive every cachance we can to use existing district government. we will also help for ever we can. in some cases, security alone makes it difficult. we are going to have to partner with them. it will be unique in every place. >> i would agree with what general mcchrystal laid out. we are working very hard with the different programs, developmental programs, delivered on the civilian side to make them much more agile. they will work with national security forces and move into a
new district. it becomes imperative that we started delivering economic assistance and tried to get jobs created. we have made a lot of progress during the last six months about refining programs so that when it general mcchrystal's marines went in to the province, the 24 hours later we had a developmental specialist on the ground several days after that. there were dog work programs, digging of ditches. that was under way. >> thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for your public- service all these years. i had the opportunity to visit with you in afghanistan since the time of our trip, has the situation improved in terms of
our fighting? has stayed the same? has this look backward? >> i believe it has improved. i try to always let evince the provable. -- events be provable. >> if we take this from the political winds, there has been significant improvement. we made the second round that was decided upon. he would drew -- with a group -- withdrew. we listen to his address, there is a lot of positive things about governance and security. i think we are seen more confidence being displayed red not from president karzai's administration. actions have to follow the words. i heard secretary gates yesterday.
they came away with a very good impression that the afghan leadership has a sense of determination about that. >> it seems to me with the addition of the 30,000 troops to withdraw the troops, this puts a lot of pressure on me and your team. you are going to get the street starting in january. the troops will not be fully deployed until maybe the summer. you have what seems to me is a year to show real success with the full complement of the troops. do you think that is possible? when you think on a scale of 1- 10 with 10 been very likely and one being not likely that you have a chance for success in the amount of time as >> i've the
the chance is very high. i am confident that although there is pressure on us to move forward, i think that is fine. there is pressure on iraq and partners. they realize we need to move forward. that is good. there will be tremendous amount of pressure on the enemies. the force is already on the ground and the changes we have made. we will be able to make significant progress. >> do you think the afghan government senses the pressure of the timeline and that they are fully engage to make this a successful period for us? >> i do. success is the point we reach when the government of afghanistan is able to provide for the security of its own people. there is a bit of ambivalence about it. it is understandable. they do want to stand up and have full control of their sovereignty. that is reflected in the
inauguration address. he said that within five years, he wants afghanistan security forces to be in the lead and responsible for security nationwide. against that, given the history of modern afghanistan and the uncertainty of the neighborhood they live in, there is a nervousness about losing the president -- presence of the neda staff and americans. -- nato staff and americans. this is a very good forcing function to get the afghan leadership to stand up to have a target for them. karzai said we need that kind of pressure. we want to stand up. jim mcchrystal has said we are going to have to be cognizant of afghanistan's long-term means for security. as president karzai said in his
inauguration, the idea of having a strategic partnership with united states is something that i think is going to be essential as we move forward and define what that long-term relationship with afghanistan is about. >> thank you. >> the american people still want this to capture and kill osama bin laden. it occurs to me that would be an important strategic military goal as well. are we still love of the business of trying to capture and kill? secretary kate said the we have not had good intelligence on his whereabouts in years. can you discuss with us what part of the mission, catching and killing osama bin laden is for you right now that / >> i am responsible for inside afghanistan. were osama bin laden to come in there, it to become a huge priority. if he is not inside, it is
outside of my mandate. i do believe it is very important. >> can you speak to that at all? the exact same perspective. >> the last thing i like to discuss with the is pakistan. the president recently said that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists. this may be where osama bin laden is. this location is known. his intentions are clear. the times reported that the administration has said in private that the leaders will not allow us to follow the insurgents and fight them and we will continue to do so even without that information. what kind of cooperation are you getting from pakistan? do you believe that the air going to be willing and the partners of the fight this cross border battle? >> my current partnerships is very good. it is getting better all the time.
they now face a very significant internal insurgency. i believe that as the focus on that, -- neither can achieve security and stability without success from the other side of the border. i think that forces us into alignment. i think it is important that what we as a nation do is recognize those. this reinforces the long-term partnership. >> senator, you know that a major shift that the administration made when they announce the strategy in march was to try to pull together the regional aspects of security in central and south asia. now looking at just afghanistan
or pakistan but looking at the two together. richard holbrooke and his partnership with david petraeus , there is a full effort being made. when you talk about them, at the embassy and our embassy in kabul, that we do work together under ambassador holbrooke's direction. there is political dialogue and we try to encourage. more promising in the arab economic cooperation, trying to help both sides to reach a transit trade agreement. working with both sides to help improve customer posts along the frontier.
some of those projects have lead to positive results. there is not going to be any real significant breakthroughs in there. we do have a comprehensive approach. thank you. thank you both for your service. >> thank you. thank you very much. i wanted to say welcome. i want to thank you each for your dedicated services to our country. i also want to thank all the men and women under your leadership for their sacrifices as we discussed afghanistan policy today. i asked that to keep our military civilians in mind and also in their careers as they stand there.
>> much has been said and written about the problems with the acting government. one of them is corruption. clearly, we must have a reliable afghan government to partner our new strategy. without question, the goal of unity of effort i think has really set a new spirit in afghan and has brought many parts of our government to bear on what we need to do. you also mentioned about improving the the key ministries in order to build a legitimacy
in the afghan government. you have a firsthand view of the many ministries and local governments in afghanistan. what is your view of how the government is doing today? you have touched on this. do you want to go deeper into it? what is it we need to do to bring an improvement about? >> i would start in saying having gone through a very difficult selection process, karzai, did emerge --, presence karzai -- president karzai did emerge as a leader. one area we are doing well and one area where we can expect to see improvements in the third area will be the most difficult. at the national level, you
talked about some of the ministries of afghanistan. we are focusing our efforts on the key ministries of security, the financial sector, key ministries that deliver important services, health and education. those ministries that are going to be very important to a canister and for the generation -- to afghanistan for the generation income for its people, agriculture, mining, energy, water management, and so forth. ñithose ministers have had a lot of progress over the last several years. we expect president karzai will announce his new cabinet. we are cautiously optimistic. we will get generally good ministers there. we will work closely with those important ministries with a good leaders. we think we have a good programs aligned. we will seek for their success. the next area is in the rule of
law and justice. a lot of work needs to be done. we do have some success but we are building upon. we do have a commitment from president karzai in his speech that he is going to tackle head- on the issue of corruption. it is not going to be an easy fight at all. help is needed from the international community. the international community has to change its way over time of how we dispense aid. a lot of money in afghanistan goes outside of the government of the can assam. we will work with the afghan government. -- of afghanistan. we will work with the afghan government area. the third area is teddy said national level. this is the most difficult area. -- is at the seven national level. that is the most difficult area. have you provide health services in insecure districts?
forces are moving in and trying to push the taliban back. that is the area that is most problematic. weñi have good work going on. we have some good aid programs. this is the one we will have to lead into heavily to try to figure this out. we talked about clear hold and transfer. that transfer is in the far district. that is one that is the most problematic. let's>> you mentioned these different departments that we are sitting there to help the afghan government. one that you alluded to this commerce. there is the possible development of businesses within the sister -- with in these
districts and the government level as well. general mcchrystal, since the release of your assessment of the region, there has been a help the debate over the number of troops being developed and deployed to afghanistan. however, i feel we should not focus solely on the number of troops along. ignoring the total number of troops proposed, my question has to do with equipment and personnel. are we sending the right personnel there with the right equipment to achieve the goals that we have in those regions?
the ultimate goal is to capture al qaeda. you probably know what you need in terms of personnel and equipment. my question to you is, do we have the right equipment and personnel to achieve our goals in the region? >> the short answer is we do. the reality is that the requirement keep changing so we have to keep on moving. we haveçó made improvements on things like intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance equipment. people think of predators, but it is a wide array of that. it includes people. that is one that keeps growing. we have put a tremendous effort at continuing to grow.
it'll help us dispose of devices. the answer is, i think we are doing an extraordinary job providing it. as this effort of balls, we will do it. -- evolves, we will do it. we are getting great people out there. tooling is something that we encourage participants to do. -- touring is something that we encourage participants to do. this is one that we can do better. we must do better. we do not have enough people who speak these languages. we are not producing fast enough. there was a ramp up yesterday. i met 160 people that has created the afghan hands program.
i talked to them. there midway through programs. -- they are midway through programs. that has to be a star. we have to produce people who are linguistically armed to be protected. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your service to your attention. i have been honored to visit you in the field. i appreciate your hard work in the briefings we have gotten and the professionalism you have shown. an individual testified that we were not sure whether not we should increase troops are not. no military in the world was better prepared than ours to be successful given that challenge. i think it is very true. i cannot be more proud.
general mcchrystal, i read your assessment. i thought it was highly sophisticated in a new once analysis of the challenges we face. some people think the -- and nuanced analysis of the tonnages we face. some people think the military does not think a civilian challenges. you are a licking and comprehensively. n-- are looking at it comprehensively. i do not like that we have had to commit more troops to afghanistan. i had hoped that we would be able to bring down those troops. i think the commander and chief has analyzed this and come up with a proposal that i intend to support. you say you can make it work. it sounds like to me that it
can be made to work. i intended to be supportive. i certainly look forward to the hope that we will be able to draw down our troops and turn over the government to the local people. twice i have talked or maybe three times about the dangers of expectations in afghanistan. they have historical challenges, regional histories, extremely remote, extremely poor, and not a history of a strong national government. i would like to pursue this with you a bit. secretary gates recently indicated in his prepared statement that you would want to engage the communities in afghanistan to enlist more local security forces to protect their own territory. i heard the national advisor
talk about the need for local militias. i think i knew what he meant by that. former president rashard of pakistan a few weeks ago reminded us that for centuries afghans have been governed loosely through a social compact of sorts between all afghan groups of but under a sovereign king or sovereign central authority. your statements made me a bit nervous in a written statement. you said that some might argue that we are reaching too high and that afghanistan has rarely had a central government capable of carrying out these tasks, that to expect a coherent state to now emerges unrealistic and a waste of resources. i disagree with that argument on several levels. i also believe that one of the
breakthroughs in iraq was when the marines made a compact with tribal leaders and basically funded those leaders to use their young men to allocated to al qaeda who they wanted to see ousted. they were not all sent off to baghdad. they were loyal to their local leaders. they shared the common goal. i know there is tension between creating militias not loyal to the central government. it is not as dangerous. it seems to me we have to take some risks in some of these areas that are remote that have good and decent leaders. we can just report them and we could perhaps be able to not have to commit our own troops there. i'll ask both of you. do we have this right?
are we over committed to a centralized authority? are we willing to boolook at lol militias? >> i think we are getting it right. as you said, afghanistan has a unique sensitivity to militias, even more so then rocketed. the history after the civil war that began with the department is soviets saw the rise in these militias that were predatory and under warlord. they were absolutely feared and hated today. the have a very strong local security tradition as well. what we are trying to do and we are working in a number of areas to enable villages and small villages to deny their area to insurgent access.
what that means is we will support them and we provide local security. we do not want to by malicious and a run for them to be come something else. it helps find a nation together. it is a source of pride. i think the combination of the two -- every time i talked to afghans about the local security initiatives, i will get -- yes, but be very careful. yes, but make sure you do not harm the wrong group. i think we need to do it with caution. >> i agree with general mcchrystal. there is a balance here. it is the absence of a coherent state of afghanistan that paved the way for the rise of the taliban and then facilitated the entry of al qaeda.
you cannot ignore the need for a central government of the afghanistan with the ability to buy for the security of its people and deliver basic services. >> due to see that there has to be very strong. do you see that there has to be strong control from kabul? >> i agree with general mcchrystal that it is essential that the government of the afghanistan have a capable army that is able to reach throughout the country. it has to have control over the police forces. what is the right balance of minimum service provision from the government of afghanistan that has to flow to the country in areas of health care, education? trying to get the proper balance right is essential. >> my time is up. i would say that the state department is challenged in
fulfilling its responsibility in afghanistan. we are aware that the prt is dominated by the military. you do not have people there. secretary clinton said that there are about 900 state department state people in the country. that would be about 1% of our total. headache of the filly greater role, i would be supportive of it. -- if they could fill a greater role, i would be supportive of it. xd>> do i have a moment to respond? the civilian uplift that we have had over the last year is most impressive. i had a 35 year military career. i haveñi gained an extraordinary respect for how the civilian elements of our government have
responded to the requirements of afghanistan. çówe had a threefold increase in civilian personnel assigned to our embassy and the route afghanistan. we will soon reach that point. it'll be a sixfold increase of who we have out in the field. it is not the number of people. the numbers are impressive, but it is not the numbers the matter. right now in helmand, we have five agricultural experts who are mobilizing a 500 man afghan agricultural delivery capability that is reaching 14,000 forarmers. we have a department of agriculture. their expertise is at the level that they are able to build a ministry of agriculture. it is not necessarily the number of people. it is what this people can do.
if we arexd taught me by militay units, it employs platoons. and the civilian side, we deploy individuals. every individual is i am proud that we have tripled our presence on the ground. -- is unique. i am probably have tripled our presence on the ground. >> thank you. >> i would like to begin by saying i share a number of concerns that senator sessions just raise with respect to the potential contradiction between the cultural and political history of afghanistan, what we are attempting to do in this policy. i would like to start by saying every juror written statement in full. i appreciate the frankness. i think it is important for us to set out with an awareness of
the limitations that we have, which is something that you mentioned. but to me begin by saying i support ied the link the evaluation process. i think it was important for us to get the best minds of our government involved. in that respect, general mcchrystal, and i am going to give you an opportunity here to straighten the record on something along the lines of what i think senator lieberman propose to the ambassador. this process took several months. in early september, the majority leader read -- wrote a letter to secretary gate askingñi for an update on the evaluation. secretary gates rode back until the president makes his decision on the way [unintelligible]
it to be inappropriate for me or our commanders to openly discuss the it is being provided with the nature of the discussion that is being carried out. that was about the time that you hopped up on 60 minutes with a rather lengthy interview. when people were actually in the white house discussing options, you were seen giving a speech in london. there are a number of people who believe this is detrimental and even divisive as this process moves forward. can you explain to us your move -- you on how it was compatible with the secretaries outline? >> the "60 minutes" interview was filmed in july. it was before this process and before that guidance. there is no intent or connection with that. the discussion in london, there is no intent on my part to influence for negatively impact
the decision making process. i regret the intent thought of for that. >> it was a same day people were meeting in the white house to discuss the way forward? >> i was not aware of that at the time. >> ambassador, i would like to ask you to questions. the first, in your testimony, you are talking up the nea -- let me get to the page -- to adjust our efforts to promote a government that the judge did levels. do you believe this is achievable under the current constitutional system that of afghanistan has in? would you prefer to see another system that devolved power that would make this more compatible
with the history and culture of afghanistan? >> i think the limiting factor is not the framework of the constitution. the limiting factor that exists is the difficulties of the government of afghanistan has after 30 years of war, trying to develop the necessary organizational capacities to deliver services. their talents in the development of human capital. >> -[unintelligible] >> that would be my view. i knew the afghan leadership, starting karzai with starting is looking at the possibility of the idea of taking more
financial resources and allocating that to a provincial governor and allocating that a district governor. right now, they are starved for funds. there are additional discussions going on and that should be the right mix of the electron bodies and presented him bodies at the seven national reading subnatinal level. -- the bodies at the subnational level. >> thank you. i would like to pose another question to you. i think you are uniquely qualified to address this given your experience on many different levels with steine --h china. they were known to be on a good
relationship with the taliban government. there are a number of reports about chinese economic projects in afghanistan right now. could you give us a summation of the nature of the relationship between china and afghanistan and in terms of china cooperating with us in the program if you are putting forward right now? >> i think china sees a stable afghan in their own interest. the chinese government has its own concerned with international terrorist groups that are known to operate in the border regions and inside of pakistan that have impact on chinese internal security. the chinese have made very significant investments in side of afghanistan.
they have one major investment right now. there is a billion dollar investment in a copper mine in the lobagar province. they are looking at other investment and mining sectors. >> i am aware of the project. are you -- are they cooperating with us on the government level with respect to what we are attempting to do here? >> we have an active dialogue with the chinese government as we do with many others in terms of the overwrought filaments strategy and political strategy in afghanistan -- in terms of the overall afghanistan strategy and political strategy. they have their economic interests, which they have been putting investment into. >> my time is up.
as a question of fact. has there been a collective announcement of the sorts in china with respect to the policy? >> we have a good policy of dialogue. >> yes or no? ? i would not say that their level of engagement is on the level in terms of this. >> just answer. has there been a statement to your knowledge that they support what we are attempting to do? >> i am not aware policy. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is good to see you in this part of the world.
we had the opportunity to meet with some of your team that you put in place. first of all, all of these folks have been handpicked by you. have you got your team in place? i don't expect you to assess individuals or specifics, but is short team in place there? have you got what you want? >> we are extraordinarily well supported not only by the leaders and organizations to
provide me people but by the people who live -- the families who have given them up for this period. >> resource-wise, where are you from the standpoint of having your -- the equipment you need? >> with the additional forces approved, we will have to look -- worked through additional resources and intelligence and surveillance equipment, but it is generally on track. >> i wanted to walk through with us this issue of building up of the afghan troops, but the military and the security police, because i went back and read your report again, and i also read your testimony from today and heard what you have had to say. obviously the critical point that we can seriously think about turning back country over to the afghan people from the standpoint of security, not governments but from the
standpoint of security, is the point in time when the army and the police are well trained enough to protect the citizens of afghanistan. in your report, you indicated that we had about 94,000 afghan military personnel trained. is that still in the range of where we are? >> yes, sir. >> you indicated we had about 84,000 afghan national police train. again, is that in the range where we are? >> it is all little higher than that now. >> of those numbers, what percentage of that can we really count on? what is a hard-core number that you can say, gold and secure a province are whatever? >> for the afghan army, we work with about 77% present for duty. training, and they have gone up a wall in different
municipalities. but it is pretty good. a significant percentage of that 94,000 we can put out on actual operations. on the afghan national police, is less. that is because the level of training in the commitment we have had over time is much new work and much more in mature. -- much newer and much more immature. they have a few drug problems and other things. >> on the military side, are the taliban paying their soldiers more than we are paying afghan troops? >> there is no set pay scale, but by our intelligence, they pay the equivalent of $300 u.s. a month, and that is higher than we are paying afghan army recruits. >> do we intend to ratchet that
pay up to compete financially with the taliban? >> in coordination with the government of afghan, we almost doubled that pay. is that parity now. it is less than $300 a month but it is much closer. >> i like to go through some benchmarks relative to the training numbers. my understanding that you want to get to 240,000 military, 160,000 police. you indicated to senator mccain that you are still on the timeline of 2013 of accomplishing those numbers. but looking where we are today and that in 2010, you will assess the situation on the ground, the biggest part being the number of military and security police you have available to us assigned to different areas to start transitioning. what you expect to have trained
by the end of 2010 from both standpoints? >> for the afghan army, our goal is 134,000 soldiers in theñi force trained, all going through the initial entry training, and for partnering, we expect to raise the effectiveness of the individuals and organizations, but about 134,000, less actually in units in the field but a good significant percentage would be. it in the police, i expect have getting over 100,000. 98,000 are authorized. i expect to get an approval to get up to the 110,000 range. the biggest progress in the police will not be in numbers but in improving their leadership, their levels of training, and we were only partnering with about 20% of the police as of this summer.
we are increasing that dramatically with the forces that the president approved in march. we will increase that significantly again with these additional forces coming forward. >> in your report, august 30, and you indicated by october 2010 you wanted to get to that one under 34,003 the additional troops being sent are not going that put up that number, relative to the number of military folks you can have triggered >> we do not believe we can speed it up any faster than that in the october 2010, but we will put a significant portion of the force into both the training base and the rest of the force will all be targeted. double>> some of the areas wheru send some of these 30,000 additional troops is down into helmand, where you are having a
tough time, where the road -- with you deployed some additional marines recently. let's assume that you have great success there and great success against the network over in rc east. if you have that success and they get to the border, and across the border into pakistan, what do we have to have in the pakistan military on the other side to accomplish our mission and meet the challenge you have laid out there? >> what am seeking the government of pakistan to do to be intolerant of that network. they are afghans, and they want a smear of influence all the way up into kabul. they live in northern were zero stand wh >> no. wahrizistan.
i hope that they will be intolerant of the existence of the network inside pakistan. but if they will prosecute that policy, i believe inside afghanistan we can deal with the remainder of that network. >> and in helmand? >> you are right -- the marines and their british partners and the danes and others, is a team effort down there -- we are not reinforcing failure but success down there. we are expanding the area. the additional forces will let us expand as we continue our security zones. there is a significant area of want to get at as soon as we get the first marine gen. we're going to do that and send not only a powerful operational post to us but a communications network or message, not only the narco traffickers but the
taliban. >> thank you, senator chambliss. senator camccaskill. >> i'll like to talk about contract in as it ranks with the afghans we have hired, following up on that line of questioning. i know that joint contracting command has issued that at least half the contract in force should be from the area, not just areas, but from the immediate areas. i know that the other civilian contractors were running a very high percentage of afghans. it is a market and much different situation than we had in iraq.
it is my different -- it is my understanding that president karzai has expressed frustration with this because these contractors and the army. it is even worse than competing against the taliban but against ourselves, since as you have clearly stated, the most important part of this mission is to add to the police and the army. so how are we going to fix this problem? >> two points -- what you are raising is very important. first of all, president karzai in his inauguration speech said that he would like to move forward and over the next several years take these various contracting companies, foreign companies, private security companies, and move them under a
more formal licensing from the government of afghanistan. we fully support that. it will be difficult to agree on the standards but we see examples where it can work and we think that is the direction that we should be going. that is very consistent with the idea over the next several years about afghanistan taking further steps to reclaim its full sovereignty, getting its army out front, its police up front, and flooding contractors is another issue. -- fronting contractors is another issue. we are trying to take any kind of security contract grou p, that is expatriate, and moving that afghans. >> you have not address the problem. i am afghan and toying whether i
want to be an iran with a taliban or i wanted to win the good side, and i looked and i can get trained as a police officer, or i can get hired -- i have a little bit of english -- or i can get hired for more money watching an american base. that is not hard. i go for the more money, watching the american base or even a more extreme example, even more frustrating, i can peel potatoes in the mess and make more money than taking up arms on behalf of my country. it's almost like we are working -- i understand that this was great in theory, but in executing this policy to use afghans, aren't we denying ourselves success at our own mission? >> when i talked about the move toward afghan licensing of security companies, i did not explain that that would be a move to address what you are getting at -- pay structures
that are inconsistent with the national forces. >> what about other contracts? what about the people that are being hired of moving supplies and food and all of those services? how are we addressing this pay disparity, making more from us than they can make by joining forces with the afghan government? >> you have hit something that is very important i bring it back to counterinsurgency and unity of effort. counter insurgency is a complex system. every time you wind changed something, it has intended and unintended consequences somewhere else. we have come in with all good intentions, and someone is given a requirement to do something like build a school. the quickest and most efficient way to do that particular task may be to hire people from outside afghanistan, maybe pay a higher wage, you can get it done faster. but the unintended consequences are people who would be
schoolteachers or would-be soldiers picked up and move into something that would not be efficient for the nation of a long haul. in afghanistan, a number of things are out of balance. we had doctors and educated people doing things because they can make money, usually for the international community. but they are not taking their rightful place in the economic system overall. this is where we've got to improve the unity of effort. when you are not unified, decisions are made that seem to make sense, but the larger picture -- it is very complex and it is not just u.s. military or u.s. government, but it is the international community and sometimes just freight business. >> i hope you get with the joint contracting command and -- because i hate that we are working against ourselves. there is always unintended consequences, and we need to be